About / Contact Us

Creation Research is not underwritten by any one church or denomination Creation Research is a faith ministry funded by the gifts of God's people to proclaim Christ as Creator, Sustainer, Saviour, Lord and Judge.For full statement click Aims & Beliefs

SEE 3D FOSSILS/CREATION EVIDENCEMUSEUM.Click on your country for DONATIONS, FIELD TRIPS,NEWS, ARTICLES, ORDERS, RESEARCH, FIELD TRIPS.

If you wish to write, email or phone Creation Research offices worldwide see details below.

Dawkins Verses Mackay

John has a well filmed track record of debating and defeating many of the world's leading evolutionists including the world's best known Atheist Cambridge Prof Richard Dawkins, who contacted John for a head to head session which has been broadcast several times on Channel 4 in the UK and uncut versions can usually be seen on YOU TUBE RICHARD DAWKINS VERSES JOHN MACKAYPART 1, PART 2 & PART 3unless Dawkins gets them removed every now and then.

DAWKINS TV INTERVIEW WITH MACKAY REVIEWED "The Genius of Charles Darwin: Richard Dawkins, Channel 4 (UK), Monday 18th August 2008. In the third episode of a three part series Richard Dawkins interviewed John Mackay, International Director of Creation Research. The 3½ minute segment was put together from a 30 minute interview recorded before one of John's meeting in London during November 2007. It also included excerpts of the first part of that meeting. Considering we recorded around 30 minutes of a public clash - we received a reasonably fair treatment at Dawkins hands - they also used a good promotional shot of John in a pulpit with banner stating "Jesus Christ is Lord" over the top of John - now all the UK can read the truth no matter what Dawkins said. Keep praying for this Professor of Science.

The producers of programmes like this have a great amount of freedom to use the material gathered in any way they wish - that is part of the risk anyone takes when agreeing to be interviewed. We suspect Dawkins hoped John would sound ridiculous to viewers when he told the TV audience that "kill or be killed; survival of the fittest; nature red in tooth and claw" had no part in The God's world when it was created 'very good', the result has been that now many more millions of people have been made aware of a simple but important truth which includes that they will not die because they get old, but because they are sinners. Death is not natural whether it occurs peacefully in old age, or violently at the claws of a vicious predator. Death in every form is the direct result of human rebellion against God. It is our fault and we cannot blame Him or, as Dawkins does, use it as an excuse to deny Gods existence.

All that was shown before the face to face exchange between what Brian Viner, self-confessed Dawkins admirer, described in the following morning's Independent as "the irresistible force of his [Dawkins] argument" hitting "an immovable object, as embodied in last night's programme by a celebrated Australian creationist called John Mackay, who rejects Darwinism as hocus-pocus." It was obvious that Dawkins did not like the implications of having to acknowledge that evolution is unobserved and it is a wonder that he allowed the producers to include it - or perhaps they pulled rank. John made it clear that "What you don't see happening is not science." John responded to Dawkins' defence of why the unobserved is science by saying that his arguments actually mean, "you have a faith position, and you need to admit it..." adding later that he needed to "call what you are teaching philosophy or atheism if you are really going to be honest." In the programme Dawkins went on to illustrate the truth of John's statement, by expressing his frustration at, and ridicule of, state school science staff for not teaching atheism in their classes!

After meeting Dawkins, John Mackay commented that the Professor "was not good at thinking on his feet" so perhaps we should take more notice of how he responded later to the interview in his unopposed and scripted right of reply which followed in the same segment. Here is all that he said. "The refusal to believe in anything you can't see yourself is absurd. Think about it, I never saw Napoleon with my own eyes, but that doesn't mean Napoleon didn't exist. John Mackay can't see a cell or an atom or weather systems on the other side of the world. Does that mean they don't exist? Darwin didn't just trust his own eyes, he checked his theory through evidence gathered through extensive correspondence with naturalists across the world. Mackay, it seems to me, misunderstandsscience at a deep level: science is precisely not limited by what we can see with our own eyes in one lifetime. The whole wonderful endeavour of science is to investigate phenomena beyond human experience - from far off galaxies to microscopic bacteria."

Do we need to go any further than his opening grievance? Have Christians not been telling him and other atheists for years that their refusal to believe in anything they cannot see is absurd! Do we need to point out the obvious? Yet Dawkins and his fellow unbelievers insist we are the fools for doing that very thing. Excuse us Richard Dawkins, we do believe in what we cannot see. We call that faith, though it is based on facts - you call what you do not see science, even though it is an imaginary story imposed on the facts. You will have noticed he also accused John of not understanding science "at a deep level", adding that the "wonderful endeavour of science is to investigate phenomena beyond human experience." Let us remember here that Dawkins holds the Oxford University Chair for the Public Understanding of Science, so perhaps he should be able to explain what science is to the man in the street. Perhaps one day he will be able to explain to people how they are able to investigate something which is beyond their experience. Galaxies and microbes are within our experience, even though we need lenses to get good views of both. Should he not be telling the public that science is empirical? That is, based on xperiment, observation and experience, rather than on theory? Isn't that what creationists are often accused of ignoring?

It is difficult to give a summary of the whole programme, but it certainly was a promo for atheism. Dawkins spent time applauding Darwin for standing up to his 'religious' wife. In interviews I think he did not get the better of Wendy Wright (Concerned Women for America). Rowan Williams (Archbishop of Canterbury) lost the intellectual dual between them. The C4 own outline of the programme does not say much:

Another reviewer wrote: Dawkins' first program includes the Notable Quotable "Nobody has actually seen evolution take place over a long period but they have seen the after effects, and the after effects are massively supported. It is like a case in a court of law where nobody can actually stand up and say I saw the murder happen and yet you have got millions and millions of pieces of evidence which no reasonable person can possibly dispute."

Those in the UK who watched the first program report that although Dawkins kept saying evolution was an indisputable fact, he did not present any observed evidence to support evolution from one species to another. What did come through time and again was his militant atheism and disgust that 40% of the UK population believe in some form of intelligent design.

When they met, John Mackay invited Richard Dawkins to debate him next February to mark Charles Darwin's bicentenary. Dawkins declined, acknowledging that he was no good at debating. If Darwin was the genius Dawkins believes he was, then surely he or one of his atheist friends who is good at debating should be able to defend evolutionary science with no trouble at all. To date none ofthem have stood up to be counted, so the good news is that if Richard wants to change his mind, the door is still open for him to accept John Mackay's invitation.

Commendations churches, schools, universities

The following churches, schools, universities have written to us to share how their lives have been changed by the work of Creation Research. We trust you enjoy their testimonies.

GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, ST ANDREWS UNIVERSITY SCOTLAND asked John Mackay to speak on “Exposing Evolution, Proving Creation”, Thursday 17th March. The most perceptive question from attending students - "why didn't the evolutionist Geology Profs who were there ask any challenging questions - or any questions at all?"

NEXT DAY'S MEETING (photo right) with the University Theological Society at St Mary's College, was packed as we almost filled Parliament Hall (the old Scottish parliament met here in the 1600's - just a little tradition eh?). TS leaders report this is the biggest meeting they had ever had and were thrilled with results.

John Mackay repeated material used in the debate against John Polkinghorne on Theistic evolution, then took an hour and a quarter of intense questions. The head of the University Debating Society repeatedly did his best to demolish creation evidence during John's presentation, but much to the delight of many students, he lost every point. God blessed with abundant wisdom in the answers.

The meeting attracted good flow on from a visit to the university by our arch UK nemesis, Prof Richard Dawkins, a week earlier. Students reported Dawkins was so arrogant about evolution it only helped our cause. Surprisingly, Dawkins read out our publicity leaflet and thereby gave us free advertising! Dawkins refuses to enter into debate as he regards creationists as intellectual inferiors. Pray Dawkins will have his eyes opened to the truth of God's Word.

CANADIAN THANKS - "It was a privilege and honour to have you in our church. Your presentation on the evidence for creation was outstanding and has answered many questions that are often asked. It is our prayer that we would use the evidence for creation from the Scriptures whenever we are challenged. Thank you for your willingness to come and minister. We look forward to having you back”. Miriam Rosendall, Grace Baptist Church, Ontario.

SAVED QUEENSLANDER SAYS THANKS “It was after listening to one of your talks about creation at the Gympie Community Church about 3 years ago, that I decided to give my life to the Lord. I wanted to believe and needed some sort of hard facts (proof) that it was all a true story. You provided that for me and I will be forever grateful.” Brian Campbell, Gympie, Australia.

UK RESIDENT WRITES "My brother-in-law Johnny Dieth came with me to one of John Mackay's meetings in central London. A heckler at the meeting was attempting to shout down John Mackay and by bro-in-law became so incensed he told the heckler to "shut up". Johnny Dieth was so affected by the meeting he became a Christian shortly after as a result of learning that the Bible really was true from the beginning." Stan Langridge, London

“THANK YOU for coming into my son's school. He thoroughly enjoyed the field trip and enjoyed your talk on the Sunday morning in church. ( Kingsway in Wigan) He has eagerly awaited your return since the last time you came. He is a little boy who has been through a lot, and I thank you for giving him something to aim for. He loves science and you are a great role model for him. Thanks again and may God richly bless your work and your lives.” Love in Jesus, Wendy.

KIWI TEACHER SAYS - Your videos have been great in my Bible in schools classes. My 10 to 12 year olds can't get enough of them. They have helped them heaps and me also. Keep up the good work. Thanks John Van Bystervldt Morrinsville NZ.

MRS MABEL BAKER(Ontario, Canada) shares: “You spoke at Richmond Hill Baptist last year and Reno Stevenato who attended, bought a stack of books at the meeting. Thought you'd like to know he has come to Christ.

Aussie Creationist Superstar

"Aussie Creationist Superstar” was the label used by sceptical Center For Inquiry guru forJohn Mackay following Johns debate at Uni BC January 25 against Prof Dan Ryder. John Mackay and his case for creation were however quickly dismissed as nothing better than a Gish Gallop, while the guru then criticised evolutionist Ryder for relying on technique rather than data. But then he couldn’t (or wouldn’t say) who lost the debate, which coming from a CFI blogger is a real compliment. This was qualified by predicting Ryder would mop John Mackay up in the online debate: “Be it resolved that the genetic and fossil evidence supports the evolution model and refutes the biblical creation model" starting mid-February on;

The crowd was impressive. By 6:45 the Arts and Science amphitheatre was packed and by 6:55 the overflow room holding another 150 seats was overflowing. By 7:00 pm we were hoping the fire warden would not come anywhere near us as folks took up positions along the walls in both venues. .

The topic: "Be it resolved that the genetic and fossil evidence supports the evolution model and refutes the biblical creation model".

The prof of philosophy, Dr. Dan Ryder, defended evolution by explaining that for tonight he believed god existed and that John Mackay would be the better debater, but since the majority of scientists believed in evolution including all the ones who believed in G/god, then that is all you really need to know – so the creation side can’t be trusted no matter how good they sound. His key point was that this portion of the debate was just the introduction, and as far as he was concerned his real arguments would come to light in the follow up online debate. Sadly this prearranged online follow up became my opponent’s chief excuse when he didn’t have data or couldn’t answer my questions – he brushed aside multiple times by stating “He planned to deal with that in the online debate” – which as one woman shared at the end – “If he used that excuse one more time, I was ready to rip his tongue out!”

His majority of scientists believing in evolution claim was easy to deal with since science is not a democracy and truth has never been discovered by % acceptance. But it is also necessary to point out that the real dilemma is that present day science is controlled by the philosophy of atheism and agnosticism - truth is no longer the issue - enforced consensus is!

It took until near the end of the debate for him to admit he really was an atheist. We believe that his invention of a god for that evening was purely to avoid the issue of where life came from as he stated several times he was just discussing common descent and that abiotic origin was not evolution. His key card in this issue was to refer to a prof at Canada’s Trinity Western University who is a theistic evolutionist and a “prominent evangelical Christian” so if he can use god to boot along evolution we all can.

Since this Trinity professor claimed to have once been a young earth creationist that was mooted as a winning point so Ryder recommended we all go to the profs website to get more convinced. . So I made the unpopular reply that the scriptures reveal the devil used to be a young earth creationist too but I can’t recommend any of his webs.

The atheist club was there in force. They antagonistically kicked off the question time and thereafter most questions were addressed to me and had little to do with anything I had stated in my defence.

Most of my opponent’s attacks began and ended as ad hominem attacks on creationists especially yours truly and the prof never really got round to discussing much evidence to support evolution. He conceded the fossil record was spotty but that was irrelevant. All you needed was to observe the similarities in creatures. Then make evolutionary family trees which have to be the most powerful and convincing evidence for evolution.

His most successful side tracking strategy was to attack our use of scriptures against homosexuality which antagonized the pro-homosexual lobby in the audience and they used up quite a bit of question time on this issue. They were unhappy when I advised them that natural selection eliminates homosexuals and unless all the authors they were quoting happened to be the Creator of sex, then what they thought about homosexuality was irrelevant compared to the real God’s stand on the issue. But it did give us opportunities to really share the Christ as Creator and Redeemer with many students and profs etc who would never enter a church.

I guess the saddest comment came from one person who stated’ “I have been to quite a few of these debates on creation but this is the first time I have heard anyone mention Jesus”.

Praise God for the opportunity and pray for the follow up debate – emails have been firing like crazy all over campus and on local radio and there have been heaps of great discussions with students.